medgremlin @ medgremlin @midwest.social

Posts

7

Comments

487

Joined

2 yr. ago

These were planted alongside trails and on the medians of the road. This is just down the road from my house and the land these trees were on is not useful for literally anything besides trees.

I've spent enough time around religious wingnuts to know that some of them just do it out of hate and disgust. It's not always self-disgust. Sometimes they just buy into the propaganda so deeply that any deviance is simply abhorrent and must be eradicated.

I have personally dragged a couple of people out of that mindset and they are very straight, so it was never a self-hatred thing, just a brainwashing thing.

The bit right after that talks about how that was his MO for assaulting gay men and he kept a "profanity-laced journal" about his actions.

In b4

I would assume that you would understand that this kind of protest works better when applied without exception, even when there is acknowledgement that there are exceptions among the people impacted. Hopefully, those men who are allies in this would be understanding of the fact that if these women made exceptions all over the place, the power of the protest would be significantly diminished. It does require a reciprocal sacrifice on the part of men that support women in this endeavor, but that should not be thought of as an offensive or undue burden.

This is tied into the problem that the left has with a lot of protests and campaigns. The real/best answers are always nuanced, but if you try to fit that into a meme, or in a slogan, or in a soundbyte, it just ends up being garbled gibberish. The "Not All Men" argument obstinately ignores the fact that having a nuanced discussion through a megaphone at a protest just does not work. Of course it is not all men, but it is a large enough proportion to be seriously worried about.

This is similar to BIPOC fighting back against the KKK and all the similar organizations and being told they're bigoted and wrong because it's not every white person that's a racist. Of course it's not that every white person is a racist, and of course it's not that every man is a monster, but to grab attention and make a statement, you have to trim the nuance out and pick the most important piece out or else your protest just gets lost in the noise.

Protests are a very truncated form of communication and there are many people here on Lemmy that are pointedly forgetting or ignoring that fact in their outrage and offense in response to this protest.

Yours is a voice in a chorus in the response to this article on Lemmy. The majority of the comments on this article and similar ones are calling out the "misandry" and shouting down commenters who disagree with them. The predominant sentiment appears to be men interpreting this as an indiscriminate punishment and expressing that they are personally aggrieved and offended by this protest because they're "one of the good ones".

Right now, if you want to be "one of the good ones", you need to be turning around and fighting the men who are expressing entitlement in the face of this protest as well as the men who started out from the position of "your body, my choice". Simply stating that you are an ally is not enough. As a man, you have the privileged position of being able to speak to other men on a more level playing field to try to convince them of the gravity of the impending attack on women's rights without being accused of being "emotional", "hysterical", or "misandrist" just for participating in the conversation.

If you are so intent upon discussion of this matter as being an issue of misandry, I certainly hope that you are as staunchly against misogyny and intend to do far more than just voting for Kamala to protect women in this country.

That is my main concern. Men will not suffer irreparable harm from the consequences of the coming Trump administration anywhere near the same way women will. I will assume that you will consider this to be misandrist as well, but I have little regard for the concerns and complaints of men in this matter because for women, this is quite literally a matter of life and death.

Trying to harp on the "misandry" part of this is not productive towards the goal of the protest which is the protection of women's rights and lives against the coming onslaught.

This has already started happening and the result is that there are growing swaths of red states where there is little to no access to OB/Gyn care. Women in places like Idaho are on waiting lists for OB/Gyns so long that their first prenatal appointment can be as late as 20 weeks into the pregnancy. The waiting list problem doesn't even account for the fact that women are having to drive as much as 200 miles to get to appointments.

Refusing to engage in sex or relationships is not "shutting people out", it's exercising bodily and personal autonomy. This issue is a potato in a world of apples and oranges and cannot be compared meaningfully to other issues. Is a lesbian the equivalent of a racist for being entirely uninterested in men? Is an asexual person a bigot because they refuse to have sex with anyone?

The assertions you are making are a moot point if you value consent at all. If women do not consent to be in relationships or have sex, that needs to be the end of the discussion without coercing them to change their minds by calling them bigots for their refusal to consent.

They're not alleged oppressors. Women's rights in this country have always been an uphill battle, and we were already quite a ways away from proper equity before the MAGA crowd and the republicans started rolling things back. Is the ACAB sentiment bigotry? Are BIPOC communities bigoted for being wary of white politics and actions?

There are two genders in this country: Cis-male, and political. If you're not cis-male, you're at a disadvantage out of the gate, and it is far from unreasonable for women or people in general to be wary and suspicious when it comes to their safety. I have no misandrist views, but I am keenly aware of my disadvantages and vulnerabilities when it comes to interactions with cis-men, particularly in romantic or sexual contexts.

I am currently married, but in my previous experiences, the majority of male partners I have had both claimed to be feminist allies and used heavy coercion (and in one case outright rape) to get what they wanted. My husband won a lot of points with me by accepting a "no" without further argument thereby respecting my choices and my consent. I try to trust other humans at baseline, but in my experience, young men are frequently horny and not overly concerned with the long term consequences of getting what they want in the short term. I have not been given strong evidence that young American men can really be trusted to protect women from unintended pregnancies if those women don't have access to contraception or abortion.

While spite might be a partial motivator in this, left-wing progressive feminist ally sperm can cause a pregnancy just as well as right-wing fascist misogynist sperm can. When part of the motivation is to protect oneself from an unwanted pregnancy, it doesn't matter who the sperm is coming from, and men that feel that they are being wronged by this should take it as an impetus to fight back against the people who are touting this whole "your body, my choice" thing.

A woman refusing to have sex with you is a punishment? It seems that your mindset is based on the concept that you are owed sex at a baseline and a refusal to have sex with you is a violation. It's that kind of mindset that keeps many men from being actual allies to women's liberation. Coercion and rape are not the same thing, but they share a neighborhood in the realm of indecent and cruel things that humans do to each other, and walking around with the idea that one is owed sex in any capacity increases the likelihood that one would resort to coercion or worse when rejected or denied.

I was very grateful that none of the cadavers we had at my medical school were John/Jane Does, and that we have a memorial service for the cadavers every year and invite the families to express gratitude.

I worked as a scribe and as an ER tech in a Level 1 peds hospital. I'm not even done with med school and I've already punched that card more times than I care to remember.

I have gotten pretty good at weaseling my way into in-groups despite being a queer socialist with strong opinions about human rights, unions, and civil rights. It took a lot of trial and error though.

I explained the concept of there being the two genders of "cis-male" and "political" to one of my professors at a religious university and he was actually interested to hear me out on it because he had never thought of it in that paradigm. I'm absolutely not saying that everyone can be convinced, but some people can be nudged in the right direction if you have a good rapport with them.

You have to be very careful about "filtering" as well. It becomes far too easy to write off a legitimate concern if it has to pass muster with your "filter" before you consider it. The HPI and subjective portions of a note are explicitly for the things the patient (or their caretaker) tells you. It is subjective. Then you do your objective examination and testing, then you make an assessment, and if you can justify that assessment with the testing and history, then you can make a plan. SOAP notes go in that order for a reason.

That doesn't mean you ignore them. You listen to what they're saying, maybe take it with a grain of salt, and actually get a good history and physical.